OCTOBER 5, 2015
Four months and the sedevacantists will not answer if LG 16 is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
I have to ask this question, since like the Left, the sedevacantists infer that there are explicit cases in 2015 saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. These persons they infer are exceptions to the dogmaextra ecclesiam nulla salus.
They infer this, when like the Holy Office (CDF) 1949, they assume that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church.If they are exceptions they would have to be explicit and visible in the flesh.So they conclude that there are known exceptions to the dogma and they refer to persons saved in invincible ignorance and with the baptism of water(LG 16) and are unaware of the irrational reasoning they are using.They will keep silent and refuse to answer the question.
Since they already assume that LG 16 is explicit and since they are not aware of this, I have to begin the discussion by asking them if LG 16 is explicit.
They will not answer.
This is a rational question and the priests will not answer.
Can you see people, non Catholics in 2015, who are saved outside the Church with the baptism of water and Catholic Faith? Yes or No? It's no for me. Since I cannot see or know any such case here where I live.
Can you see or know non Catholics now in Heaven in 2015 saved in inculpable ignorance(LG 16) ? The answer is no for me.
In my discussions with the sedevacantist blog owner at Ad Altare Dei some four months back, initially he agreed that LG 16 is not explicit ( this is common sense!) but then he was not sure and changed his mind!! At first he said that we cannot see the dead-saved in Heaven and then he changed his mind!!
He got confused when I asked him if he was holding the Feeneyite position.He said that there were no exceptions to the dogma EENS and LG 16 was not explicit , but he was not supporting Feeneyism!
Yes, this is what Fr. Leonard Feeney was saying. He was saying there could not be any known exception to the dogma EENS.There could not be any known case of someone being saved outside the Church.The baptism of desire(BOD) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) had nothing to do with the dogma.
Since 1949 the Magisterium says there are known exceptions to the dogma EENs and so do the sedevacantists Bishop Sanborn and Fr. Anthony Cekada.They criticize Feeneyism . So the blogger at Ad Altare Dei could not offend them, even though it made sense to him, his position would be rational if he supported Feeneyism.He understood there were no exceptions to the dogma, this was rational but he was not going to support Fr. Leonard Feeney.
If his reason tells him that there could not be any exceptions to the dogma, then to say LG 16 is an exception, would be to change the meaning of the dogma. This was heresy and liberalism. This 'liberalism is a sin'( have you read the book with this title?).I recommend it.
It would be the Magisterium which had made a mistake. The Magisterium was in heresy if LG 16 is not an exception to the dogma.
Worse still it would mean this mistake was being supported by the sedevacantists bishops, priests and seminarians.
The sedevacantists would have been supporting the heresy all these years and not knowing about it.
So the sedevacantists are telling each other on Twitter not to answer my question. Some of the priests too have blocked any discussion.Years have passed and there is no comment in public from Fr. Cekada or Bishop Sanborn.(March 2018. Some three years have passed and they will not answer if LG 16 refers to visible or invisible cases for them).
Where is the basis in Vatican Council II for their sedevacantism if there are no exceptions, to the old ecclesiology.They will not comment. They have gone into hiding.'Please don't ask me any questions and send me any e-mails' is the response of the bishop and the priests.They know the conclusion of this discussion would be embarassing.
It is only because they assume that LG 16 is explicit does LG 16 contradict the old ecclesiology. The fault is with them and not Vatican Council II.So I ask them is LG 16 as exception to the dogma hoping to begin a discussion.
They are similar to the priests and bishops in the main line churches here in Rome who do not want to answer if LG 16 is an exception to EENS.They know the answer! It would put them at odds with the pope and the magisterium. They would have to say that the Magisterium is in heresy.So they do not say anything.
-Lionel Andrades
Does BOD and I.I refer to visible or invisible cases in 2015 where you live? is a difficult question for a sedevacantist priest
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/10/does-bod-and-ii-refer-to-visible-or.html
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment